|
What complete and utter drivel comes out of the lying, spinning mouths of the Bush administration!
First of all, Bush did lie when he used the so-called yellow-cake "evidence" in a State of the Union Adress, after the KNEW that the "evidence" was bogus. One lie does not a liar make, I hear you say?
Because of the Republican invention, during the Reagan Administration, of "plausible deniability" for a President, it is very difficult to nail a President with lying. Even though it was clear that Reagan was lying about his awareness of Iran-Contra, it was impossible to nail him because he and his staff made sure that no tapes, no memos, no smoking gun, would exist. But if he was not lying, then he could be rightly accused of being an idiot and being out of control of his own administration.
Bush is similarly protected -- but imperfectly protected -- by the Republican dodge of "plausible deniability." Imperfectly, because many of Bush's lies are clearly demonstrable.
Bush said tht if anyone in his Administration was "involved" in the outing of Valerie Plame, they would have to leave his employ. Well, when the Grand Jury was about to produce indictments, Bush said that "anyone indicted and convicted" would be asked to leave. That is, the bastard, as always, lied the first time and retreated from his word the second time -- lying and dishonesty -- and a general lack of honor -- are trademarks of this pathetic excuse for a human being.
The investigation into how the White House solicited, received, manufactured, invented, twisted, spun, or pressured agencies for the "right" intelligence to support his ill-advised war has not yet been completed. The Republicans tried to drop that part of the intelligence investigation after the election. Therefore, in point of fact, we do not know the extent of Bush's lies. We do know, however, that he lied upon this or that occasion. If you are generous to the man, he lied at least once, for sure, no doubt, on record.
However, it was clear before the war that Bush's evidence was false or at least very shaky. The connection to al-Qaeda was absurd on its face, and there was no evidence for a meeting between Atta and Iraqi Security in Prague -- it was hearsay that has never had one iota of evidence to support it -- and plenty of intelligence agencies who had determined it to be false. Bush was not ashamed to use this shaky evidence, even when he knew he could not be sure of it.
If anyone believed Bush or Cheney about imminent threat, "mushroom clouds," or the "45 minute window" in which Saddam could launch chemical or biological weapons was and remains an utter fool. There WERE lies - they are lies which Bush is able to deny under "plausible deniability," but not under oath.
U.N inspectors and the IAEA knew -- KNEW -- that Iraq did not have a viable nuclear program; inspectors for the U.N. suspected that WMDs had been already destroyed -- but did the Bush amininstration listen to eayone other than their little incestuous circle? No. Many people came out with the truth about one admnistration claim or another, and they were attacked by the administration, but they were never, ever, consulted by the administration. This administration accepted evidence only if they wanted to believe it, not on the basis of determining its truth. That, my amigos, is lying, and the Bush admnistration was lying before the war, lying as it began, and they are lying today.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
